It's already well understood what capitalism and globalization lead to, a few people get very rich and many people suffer. And of course the destruction of resources and pollution on massive scales. Corporations will enslave people, cause ridiculous amounts of damage to the environment and don't put any effort in doing anything besides making more money. If they have no regard for anything else, of course it's going to be destructive and evil.

It's already well understood what capitalism and globalization lead to, a few people get very rich and many people suffer. And of course the destruction of resources and pollution on massive scales. Corporations will enslave people, cause ridiculous amounts of damage to the environment and don't put any effort in doing anything besides making more money. If they have no regard for anything else, of course it's going to be destructive and evil.

I don't think it's worth a few people getting ridiculously rich.

What about governments enslaving people? Socialists and liberal political philosophers want to demonize business and corporations so that people will put their trust in a "trustworthy" government. True, greed does exist, but it isn't limited to big business and I would argue big government is greedier. Capitalism leads to prosperity, socialism and restrictions lead to earning less and having people dependent on a big government. Besides, the environment isn't a factor, anthropogenic global warming is wrong and liberal/socialist politicians abuse the lie in order to hinder nations from fuel dependence and to give governments more power over citizens. I live in Nashville, it just snowed 6" and we have had record low temperatures lately. Big corporations and prosperity are not the problems, big government and socialism/liberalism are the problems. Not all big corporations are evil too, many of them donate to charities or start charities of their own, and wanting to make a profit is not evil.

It's already well understood what capitalism and globalization lead to, a few people get very rich and many people suffer. And of course the destruction of resources and pollution on massive scales. Corporations will enslave people, cause ridiculous amounts of damage to the environment and don't put any effort in doing anything besides making more money. If they have no regard for anything else, of course it's going to be destructive and evil.

I don't think it's worth a few people getting ridiculously rich.

What about governments enslaving people? Socialists and liberal political philosophers want to demonize business and corporations so that people will put their trust in a "trustworthy" government. True, greed does exist, but it isn't limited to big business and I would argue big government is greedier. Capitalism leads to prosperity, socialism and restrictions lead to earning less and having people dependent on a big government. Besides, the environment isn't a factor, anthropogenic global warming is wrong and liberal/socialist politicians abuse the lie in order to hinder nations from fuel dependence and to give governments more power over citizens. I live in Nashville, it just snowed 6" and we have had record low temperatures lately. Big corporations and prosperity are not the problems, big government and socialism/liberalism are the problems. Not all big corporations are evil too, many of them donate to charities or start charities of their own, and wanting to make a profit is not evil.

Mass pollution and over-exploiting resources is a serious problem. By 2050 there will be no more trees in the world to cut down, if we continue at the rate we're going. The US produces 220 million tons of garbage annually, so the entire world must produce billions. Air pollution is a big problem even if you don't believe in global warming, it still harms the environment and ecosystems. And it doesn't matter what the temperature was in Nashville lately, global warming affects climate not weather; the ice in the Arctic and other parts of the world has been disappearing rapidly, that's proof enough. The world isn't an infinite trash can, and our resources aren't unlimited.

Governments enslaving people is bad, but that's irrelevant. Being against big corporations, globalization and the injustice they cause doesn't mean you support a big evil government system that controls people's lives. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit but there's something very wrong with all the evil things and the ridiculous amount of destruction corporations cause, which is inevitable in our current system.

well said, but in the end there will always be greedy people who will screw over everyone and anyone even their own grandma just for money. to make an economy that satisfies everyone is difficult so people with influence will just make it to satisfy those with influence.

That because people allow there to be greedy people.
If those type of people was punished for such things, and people in that society was educated differently you find that the amount of greedy people will drop significantly. '

even if you did punish those that did those things they still would try to find a way to get away with doing the same thing again. I do agree with you that some education would help reduce the amount of greedy people it comes down to the morale values of the person and how they were brought up. were theres a need theres a want, and where theres a want there will be greed.

Nah.. Get rid of the money standers, where everyone is equal... everything is given to everyone equally. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the greedy peoples motives.. A world. or a government based on equality, all jobs are valued the same, no one gets more than anyone else. Nor does anyone get less. Doing this with a little creativity could even create a good government structure for everyone with no byes, or racism. Right now I am trying to play my friends in a war game on line in the same time type this to you. Its not working well,.

I explain more in detail later.

that sounds a lot like hippie talk to me and your forgetting one thing the human aspect. a world where everyone gets along and no one gets more than anyone else sounds nice but if a government body is given that much control over its people than that would be equal at all unless you would want the government to be controlled by a computer or something.

People are the government. laws and rules are past through voting.(there mite be a head figure for looks) But has no power over anyone else. Everyone is part of the system, everyone is a working part of the machine. Computers are at the stage that such a set up would work. Everyone know whats going on, then only need to vote on what will be done about it. Once the votes in the action is taken that is dictated by the polls. No need for a leader, or any single group in power.
Greedy people out for there own agendas can not out way the masses in this form of governing.
In a sense the people govern them selves. SO they can not bitch about a corrupt leader.

So u go from ideal communism to ideal democracy? But u r forgetting one crucial element- people. Come on now, both these systems have been tried and failed at the hands of people. what havnt people messed up in this world? You will always have disagreeing factions in ne society with over 1 million people.And you cant and wont have a society without a leader(s). You may not recognize or even realize it, but thier will always be a leader. Besides the masses are to stupid to run a country, thats why we need leaders.(utopias dont and cant exist) peace over war

well said, but in the end there will always be greedy people who will screw over everyone and anyone even their own grandma just for money. to make an economy that satisfies everyone is difficult so people with influence will just make it to satisfy those with influence.

That because people allow there to be greedy people.
If those type of people was punished for such things, and people in that society was educated differently you find that the amount of greedy people will drop significantly. '

even if you did punish those that did those things they still would try to find a way to get away with doing the same thing again. I do agree with you that some education would help reduce the amount of greedy people it comes down to the morale values of the person and how they were brought up. were theres a need theres a want, and where theres a want there will be greed.

Nah.. Get rid of the money standers, where everyone is equal... everything is given to everyone equally. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the greedy peoples motives.. A world. or a government based on equality, all jobs are valued the same, no one gets more than anyone else. Nor does anyone get less. Doing this with a little creativity could even create a good government structure for everyone with no byes, or racism. Right now I am trying to play my friends in a war game on line in the same time type this to you. Its not working well,.

I explain more in detail later.

that sounds a lot like hippie talk to me and your forgetting one thing the human aspect. a world where everyone gets along and no one gets more than anyone else sounds nice but if a government body is given that much control over its people than that would be equal at all unless you would want the government to be controlled by a computer or something.

People are the government. laws and rules are past through voting.(there mite be a head figure for looks) But has no power over anyone else. Everyone is part of the system, everyone is a working part of the machine. Computers are at the stage that such a set up would work. Everyone know whats going on, then only need to vote on what will be done about it. Once the votes in the action is taken that is dictated by the polls. No need for a leader, or any single group in power.
Greedy people out for there own agendas can not out way the masses in this form of governing.
In a sense the people govern them selves. SO they can not bitch about a corrupt leader.

So u go from ideal communism to ideal democracy? But u r forgetting one crucial element- people. Come on now, both these systems have been tried and failed at the hands of people. what havnt people messed up in this world? You will always have disagreeing factions in ne society with over 1 million people.And you cant and wont have a society without a leader(s). You may not recognize or even realize it, but thier will always be a leader. Besides the masses are to stupid to run a country, thats why we need leaders.(utopias dont and cant exist) peace over war

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle. While you have a false assumption that the majority of people are still stupid, when the internet is providing opportunity for life-long learning as an worldwide open-source platform.

You don't need a million voices for an opposition to appear within a social norm, when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy. A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject. While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda.

well said, but in the end there will always be greedy people who will screw over everyone and anyone even their own grandma just for money. to make an economy that satisfies everyone is difficult so people with influence will just make it to satisfy those with influence.

That because people allow there to be greedy people.
If those type of people was punished for such things, and people in that society was educated differently you find that the amount of greedy people will drop significantly. '

even if you did punish those that did those things they still would try to find a way to get away with doing the same thing again. I do agree with you that some education would help reduce the amount of greedy people it comes down to the morale values of the person and how they were brought up. were theres a need theres a want, and where theres a want there will be greed.

Nah.. Get rid of the money standers, where everyone is equal... everything is given to everyone equally. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the greedy peoples motives.. A world. or a government based on equality, all jobs are valued the same, no one gets more than anyone else. Nor does anyone get less. Doing this with a little creativity could even create a good government structure for everyone with no byes, or racism. Right now I am trying to play my friends in a war game on line in the same time type this to you. Its not working well,.

I explain more in detail later.

that sounds a lot like hippie talk to me and your forgetting one thing the human aspect. a world where everyone gets along and no one gets more than anyone else sounds nice but if a government body is given that much control over its people than that would be equal at all unless you would want the government to be controlled by a computer or something.

People are the government. laws and rules are past through voting.(there mite be a head figure for looks) But has no power over anyone else. Everyone is part of the system, everyone is a working part of the machine. Computers are at the stage that such a set up would work. Everyone know whats going on, then only need to vote on what will be done about it. Once the votes in the action is taken that is dictated by the polls. No need for a leader, or any single group in power.
Greedy people out for there own agendas can not out way the masses in this form of governing.
In a sense the people govern them selves. SO they can not bitch about a corrupt leader.

So u go from ideal communism to ideal democracy? But u r forgetting one crucial element- people. Come on now, both these systems have been tried and failed at the hands of people. what havnt people messed up in this world? You will always have disagreeing factions in ne society with over 1 million people.And you cant and wont have a society without a leader(s). You may not recognize or even realize it, but thier will always be a leader. Besides the masses are to stupid to run a country, thats why we need leaders.(utopias dont and cant exist) peace over war

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle. While you have a false assumption that the majority of people are still stupid, when the internet is providing opportunity for life-long learning as an worldwide open-source platform.

You don't need a million voices for an opposition to appear within a social norm, when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy. A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject. While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda.

My position still holds true. and if "stupid" is to strong a word to describe the majority of the world (even though 3rd world countries dont have internet), then how about ignorant in running a government? Most people dont have the knowledge to run a government. They dont learn that in school.

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle

When two institutions meet in a middle, it means war in some form or fashion I mean come on, his utopia doesnt even hold up in myths, religion, fantasies, fables, philosophys, thoeries, hypothesis, ect. I mean if they cant hold up in our imagination, how can they hold up in real life? Very few times has reality ever surpassed our imagination...

when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy.

yet they remain powerless to change anything...and they always end up fighting

A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject.

Yet these very same skills can be used to exploit and manipulate people toward a common goal that is in the leader's interest at the cost of the people being manipulated. This strategy works best when you pit the "ignorant" masses against each other while you take all thier cash from right under them...u can also take advantage of thier votes. As Hitler once said- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."

And while the masses continue to be at each other's throat, the elitest leaders plan on the next phase to a new or existing war.

While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda

um...sounds like a leader to me a dictator is a leader...they must have the same skills in order to do thier job. Btw, has there ever been a female dictator b4? i wouldnt mind being ruled by a beautiful woman

All in All my point still remains solid. Or perhaps im just making all this shit up as i go along? And if so, does it really matter? This so called Utopia as never existed, all forms of government failed to achieve it, and One man's utopia is another man's hell (u dont even want to imagine my utopia...) peace over war

well said, but in the end there will always be greedy people who will screw over everyone and anyone even their own grandma just for money. to make an economy that satisfies everyone is difficult so people with influence will just make it to satisfy those with influence.

That because people allow there to be greedy people.
If those type of people was punished for such things, and people in that society was educated differently you find that the amount of greedy people will drop significantly. '

even if you did punish those that did those things they still would try to find a way to get away with doing the same thing again. I do agree with you that some education would help reduce the amount of greedy people it comes down to the morale values of the person and how they were brought up. were theres a need theres a want, and where theres a want there will be greed.

Nah.. Get rid of the money standers, where everyone is equal... everything is given to everyone equally. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the greedy peoples motives.. A world. or a government based on equality, all jobs are valued the same, no one gets more than anyone else. Nor does anyone get less. Doing this with a little creativity could even create a good government structure for everyone with no byes, or racism. Right now I am trying to play my friends in a war game on line in the same time type this to you. Its not working well,.

I explain more in detail later.

that sounds a lot like hippie talk to me and your forgetting one thing the human aspect. a world where everyone gets along and no one gets more than anyone else sounds nice but if a government body is given that much control over its people than that would be equal at all unless you would want the government to be controlled by a computer or something.

People are the government. laws and rules are past through voting.(there mite be a head figure for looks) But has no power over anyone else. Everyone is part of the system, everyone is a working part of the machine. Computers are at the stage that such a set up would work. Everyone know whats going on, then only need to vote on what will be done about it. Once the votes in the action is taken that is dictated by the polls. No need for a leader, or any single group in power.
Greedy people out for there own agendas can not out way the masses in this form of governing.
In a sense the people govern them selves. SO they can not bitch about a corrupt leader.

So u go from ideal communism to ideal democracy? But u r forgetting one crucial element- people. Come on now, both these systems have been tried and failed at the hands of people. what havnt people messed up in this world? You will always have disagreeing factions in ne society with over 1 million people.And you cant and wont have a society without a leader(s). You may not recognize or even realize it, but thier will always be a leader. Besides the masses are to stupid to run a country, thats why we need leaders.(utopias dont and cant exist) peace over war

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle. While you have a false assumption that the majority of people are still stupid, when the internet is providing opportunity for life-long learning as an worldwide open-source platform.

You don't need a million voices for an opposition to appear within a social norm, when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy. A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject. While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda.

My position still holds true. and if "stupid" is to strong a word to describe the majority of the world (even though 3rd world countries dont have internet), then how about ignorant in running a government? Most people dont have the knowledge to run a government. They dont learn that in school.

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle

When two institutions meet in a middle, it means war in some form or fashion I mean come on, his utopia doesnt even hold up in myths, religion, fantasies, fables, philosophys, thoeries, hypothesis, ect. I mean if they cant hold up in our imagination, how can they hold up in real life? Very few times has reality ever surpassed our imagination...

when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy.

yet they remain powerless to change anything...and they always end up fighting

A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject.

Yet these very same skills can be used to exploit and manipulate people toward a common goal that is in the leader's interest at the cost of the people being manipulated. This strategy works best when you pit the "ignorant" masses against each other while you take all thier cash from right under them...u can also take advantage of thier votes. As Hitler once said- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."

And while the masses continue to be at each other's throat, the elitest leaders plan on the next phase to a new or existing war.

While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda

um...sounds like a leader to me a dictator is a leader...they must have the same skills in order to do thier job. Btw, has there ever been a female dictator b4? i wouldnt mind being ruled by a beautiful woman

All in All my point still remains solid. Or perhaps im just making all this shit up as i go along? And if so, does it really matter? This so called Utopia as never existed, all forms of government failed to achieve it, and One man's utopia is another man's hell (u dont even want to imagine my utopia...) peace over war

Margret Thatcher

Started the Falklands war over a country they didn't legally own, and also treated her own troops like cannon fodder. Contributed heavily to the Cold War (where each side was building up nuclear weapons and armies to kill each other out of fear, but no war happened). Contributed to the eventual destabilisation of the USSR. Ordered atrocities of murder in Northern Ireland. Supported many dictators who crushed human rights (like Pinochet's Chilean regime). Ordered civilians on a peaceful strike in Northern England to be killed by mounted police.

Her programs, known as "Thatcherism," also produced high unemployment (which nearly tripled in her first two terms), high interest rates and increased class differentiation, as well as growth of the underclass. She was a racist who disliked Blacks and Indians.

Squandered multi billions of pounds, from the North Sea oil, in military projects, instead of putting it back into the nation for development. Britain had a chance to have modern industries developed taking Britain to the forefront of technology, like Japan is, but she squandered it! Ruined the mining and steel industries (closed them down), and refused to redevelop the areas affected but instead let them rot into crime and poverty. Removed trade union rights.

Caused many public strikes over her authoritarion reforms and paycuts. Privatised many British services, making a few people very rich, and making the services suffer greatly and still become more expensive. Privitising can NEVER work in a monopoly, it always leads to greater prices and worse service, because the people running it profit out of this. Privitising can only work with strong competition, because people then have choice. (Quote: "Allowing private companies to run essential non-competitive public services is like putting dracula in charge of the bloodbank.")

Encouraged small businesses, and such businesses need loans. After encouraging them she raised interest rates so high many went out of business. Involved in corruption by giving her son hundreds of thousands of pounds, meant to be used by a government scheme.

Obsessed with money, having the "fat cat" mentality that is now plaguing the West. More of a business woman who just happened to find politics a good way to get rich. In an interview, she said the only song she liked was "How much is that doggy in the window", because she thought it had something to do with inflation! (Truely, it sounds bizarre but this was in an interview with a music magazine). Publicly said that any working man over the age of 25 that doesn't have a car to get to work could be considered a failure. So much for the environment, eh??

Caused a general revolt over the "poll tax", that lead to the Tory party being weakened and losing power. In fact they piloted the poll tax in Scotland and it was a dismal failiure, Scotland became totally anti-conversative. So she decided to bring the poll tax to England, too! The Poll Tax was the end of her career. Many people refused to pay, there were marches against it, at the election she lost power, all because of the Poll Tax.

One of Britains most unpopular Prime ministers. Liked by some only because she is a woman.

Indira Ghandi

As prime minster in 1971, Indira Gandhi led India in a war against neighbouring Pakistan which resulted in the creations of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. Her role in the war was only one of her controversial actions. She is remembered most for her campaign against Sikh separatists.

In 1973, Delhi and north India were rocked by demonstrations angry at high inflation, the poor state of the economy, rampant corruption, and poor standards of living. And in 1975, she annexed the Himalayan kingdom of Sikkim. In June of that year, the High Court of Allahabad found her guilty of using illegal practices during the last election campaign, and ordered her to vacate her seat. There were demands for her resignation.

Mrs. Gandhi's response was to declare a state of emergency, under which her political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights abrogated, and the press placed under strict censorship. Meanwhile, the eldest of her two sons, Sanjay Gandhi, started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom, and earned the fierce hatred of many whom his policies had victimized. He ordered the removal of slum dwellings, and in an attempt to curb India's growing population, initiated a highly resented program of forced sterilization.

In early 1977, confident that she had debilitated her opposition, Mrs. Gandhi called for fresh elections, and found herself trounced by a newly formed coalition of political parties. Her Congress party lost badly at the polls, but three years later, she was to return as Prime Minister of India a second time.

In the second, post-Emergency, period of her Prime Ministership, Indira Gandhi was preoccupied by efforts to resolve the political problems in the state of Punjab. She brought a general named "Jarnail Singh Bindranwale" to power, letting him occupy the holiest Sikh shrine in Amritsar, called the Golden Temple, with armed soldiers who shot many innocent people. However, her general rebelled against her and challenged her, she had created a monster. In her attempt to crush the secessionist movement of Sikh militants, led by Jarnail Singh Bindranwale, she ordered an assault upon the Golden Temple. It was here that Bindranwale and his armed supporters had holed up, and it was from the Golden Temple that they waged their campaign of terrorism not merely against the government, but against moderate Sikhs and Hindus. "Operation Bluestar", waged in June 1984, led to the death of Bindranwale, and the Golden Temple was stripped clean of Sikh terrorists; however, the Golden Temple was severely damaged, blood was spilt on the holy place for the first time in history, and Mrs. Gandhi earned the undying hatred of Sikhs who bitterly resented the desacralization of their sacred space. The attack killed an estimated 450 people, and left a legacy of bitterness.

Nuclear bombs were developed during her reign, and then exploded and tested.

Five months later, Indira Gandhi was shot dead by her Sikh bodyguards in revenge. That incident was followed by attacks on Sikh communities in Delhi and elsewhere in India, in which several thousand people are believed to have died.

Catherine the great

Waged two successful wars against the Ottoman Empire. Invaded Lithuania too. During this time, Catherine was able to expand the Russian borders. Catherine II's reign was notable for imperial expansion, which brought the empire huge new territories in the south and west, and for internal consolidation. Following a war that broke out with the Ottoman Empire in 1768, the parties agreed to the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji in 1774. By that treaty, Russia acquired an outlet to the Black Sea, and the Crimean Tatars were made independent of the Ottomans. In 1783 Catherine annexed Crimea, helping to spark the next war with the Ottoman Empire, which began in 1787. By the Treaty of Jassy in 1792, Russia expanded southward to the Dnestr River. The terms of the treaty fell far short of the goals of Catherine's reputed "Greek project"--the expulsion of the Ottomans from Europe and the renewal of a Byzantine Empire under Russian control. The Ottoman Empire no longer was a serious threat to Russia, however, and was forced to tolerate an increasing Russian influence over the Balkans.

This time Russia obtained most of Belorussia and Ukraine west of the Dnepr River. The 1793 partition led to an anti-Russian and anti-Prussian uprising in Poland, which ended with the third partition in 1795. The result was that Poland was wiped off the map, Russia had taken it's lands as it's own.

In 1788, Russia declares war on Sweden. This sharp little engagement lasts for 2 years.

The fate of the Ukrainians and Belorussians, who were primarily serfs, changed little at first under Russian rule. Roman Catholic Poles resented their loss of independence, however, and proved to be difficult to integrate. Russia had barred Jews from the empire in 1742 and viewed them as an alien population. A decree of January 3, 1792, formally initiated the Pale of Settlement, which permitted Jews to live only in the western part of the empire, thereby setting the stage for anti-Jewish discrimination in later periods (see Other Religions, ch. 4). At the same time, Russia abolished the autonomy of Ukraine east of the Dnepr, the Baltic republics, and various Cossack areas. With her emphasis on a uniformly administered empire, Catherine presaged the policy of Russification that later tsars and their successors would practice.

During the 1768-74 war with the Ottoman Empire, Russia experienced a major social upheaval, the Pugachev Uprising. In 1773 a Don Cossack, Emel'yan Pugachev, announced that he was Peter III. Other Cossacks, various Turkic tribes that felt the impingement of the Russian centralizing state, and industrial workers in the Ural Mountains, as well as peasants hoping to escape serfdom, all joined in the rebellion. Russia's preoccupation with the war enabled Pugachev to take control of a part of the Volga area, but the regular army crushed the rebellion in 1774.

Then, on the domestic front, although espousing liberal thinkers like Voltaire, she ignored the poor and increased the scale and depth of the autocracy. Under Catherine's rule, the government attitude towards serfs witnessed a major deterioration. The squires were given a free-hand to squeeze the peasantry as never before. In addition to this, inequality between the rich and poor increased. Catherine's era has been dubbed the 'golden age of the Russian nobility.' Never before had the Russian upper class been so privileged, so economically advantaged and so handsomely rewarded for doing so little. In exchange, they abdicated nearly all political pretensions (thus, strengthening Catherine's own power).

Bloody Mary

Queen Mary was the first woman to be crowned Queen of England in her own right. Her reign was brief and troubled. Her marriage to Prince Philip of Spain provoked Parliamentary dissent and armed rebellion; the Spanish alliance later drew England into a disastrous war with France, ending with the loss of Calais - England's last French territory. Her religious intolerance is legendary. In 37 years Henry VIII had killed 90 heretics, Catholic and Protestant, burned at the stake; in four years Mary burned nearly 300 Protestants. Victims included blind men, pregnant women and Thomas Cranmer, Henry's Archbishop of Canterbury, who recanted his Protestantism seven times but reaffirmed it before his execution. The repression created a Protestant resistance which grew more resolute as the burnings continued. Protestants increasingly looked forward to the accession of Princess Elizabeth.

She dealt equally harshly with the Irish. She confiscated lands belonging to the O'Moores and the O'Connors in counties Laois and Offaly, renaming them Queen's County and King's County in honour of herself and her husband. The dispossessed chieftains waged a guerrilla war against the English settlements. Under the pretext of holding a peace conference with them, the English invited the O'Moores and the O'Connors to Mullaghmast where they had them and their families treacherously murdered.

Several of England's leading Protestant bishops were tortured and burned at the stake as heretics, including John Hooper, Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer. Even Thomas Cranmer, who had been Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry and Edward, was burned at the stake as a heretic. Over three hundred Protestants died in the Marian persecutions, and eight hundred more fled to Germany and Switzerland.

Mary died, childless, in 1558; she was 42. She had caused civil war. She had long lost the popular support which monarchs now needed. Granted a longer reign and an heir, she might have succeeded in integrating England into the Catholic Church and a Catholic empire; more probably, she would have made the country ungovernable.

Tz'u-hsi

(also spelled Hsiao-Ch'in or Hsien Huang-Huo or Cixi, also known as the Dowager Princess)

Was a one of Hsien-feng (Xianfeng)'s whores. Had his only son. Her master died and she became a regent for the boy. She had her son killed the before he became of age, then violated the normal succession and had her three year old nephew named the new heir. Soon after that she was made the ruler of China, when her nephew's mother died.

Tzu-Hsi lived in extravagance; she squandered money on banquets, jewels, and other luxuries. She used funds earmarked for the navy to build herself a lavish summer palace. (The lack of military funds contributed to China's defeat in the 1894 Sino-Japanese war.) At the end of her life, her personal jewelry vault held 3,000 ebony boxes of jewels, and she was buried in diamonds.

She commanded the violently anti-foreign secret society "The Boxers" to attack foreign legations in Peking; this siege lasted eight weeks. In return, a mixed foreign force of 19,000 troops battered its way in and captured Peking. Peking was looted, many Chinese people were tortured, raped and killed. Tzu-Hsi fled to Sian. Before fleeing, Tzu-Hsi summoned the emperor's concubines and told them to stay behind. One of them begged to be allowed to accompany the emperor. "Throw this despicable minion down the well!" She ordered the guards. The order was carried-out.

Worked with the military and conservative forces to stage a coup and take power again as active regent, confining her own nephew to his palace. Later as she on her death bed, though old age, she had her nephew poisoned to death.

Golda Meir

Zionist. Contributed to the illegal settling and occupation of Palestiine. She saw no need to seek compromise with the Palestinians so long as Israel was secure. Her rigid nationalism and blinkered view of the Arabs led her to say once: "There are no Palestinians."

As Prime Minister, Meir took a hard line toward the Arab world, refusing to stop expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. She refused to give back the lands Israel had stolen though war. She also tried to occupy the Sinai and Golan Heights, but the moderates in her party prevented her.

Elizabeth I

Elizabeth gave Queen Mary of the Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, then murdered her (with no intervening freedom!).

Encouraged raiding of Spanish ships during peacetime, by pirates. Took a share of the pirate's profit. Caused a long war going on for over a decade with Spain.

By lending unofficial aid to French Huguenots she managed for some time to harass France and Spain without involving England in an actual war. As part of her marriage negotiations she later supported the duke of Alençon's participation in the Dutch war against Spain.

Queen Elizabeth I was heavily involved in the slave trading movement. Encouraging the enslavement of Africa, by sponsoring slavers to capture Africans.

She also liked to hand out knighthoods to murderers, treasoners and slavers. For example, Sir John Hawkins spent much of his later life in England at the service of the queen. Although he committed treason, murder, and adultery at various points in his career, he was nonetheless knighted in 1588 for his role in defeating the Spanish Armada.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike

A house wife to a president, she took his place when he was assasinated. She was elected president, which was from public sympathy for her husband's murder.

She ruled that all foreign businesses, which were operating in Sri Lanka, should be stolen from the owners by the government. Think of a shop like Ikea, being stolen by the British from the Swedish, and you'll get an idea of how unfair that is. As a result of this, Britain and the US imposed sanctions on Sri Lanka.

She imposed wide spread social change on her country, her communist interventionist beauraucracies, stifled business, leading to economic downslide, unemployment, and starvation. In 1973, rationing had to be imposed due to these problems, that she caused.

She acted as a dictator. She first took over the country's largest newspaper, enforcing censorship on it. Then she shut down the "Independant newspaper group", which was a harsh critic of her dictatorial ways. I can imagine it was probably done with violence, and certainly with force.

Sirimavo increased and refused to let up, the situation of police and state violence against the Tamil minority. There has been both an ongoing state violence against the Tamils under her rule, and occasions of genocide in which mobs and the state collude against the Tamils. The Tamil's non-violent freedom leader Thanthai Chelva, was ignored by her. Under her rule, the Sri Lankan government, which collected taxes from all the people, neglected the Tamil areas in national development schemes.

Going back in time to the earlier part of her career... Her country, had more than one main language. Sinhala and Tamil. The Sinhalese who spoke Sinhala, are the majority of the country's population.

Her first move after she came to power, was to increase the historical oppression against the Tamils, by ruling that Sinhalese should be used for all government business. Before then, English was used, as the unifying language. (Quite a good idea I think to use English as a unifying language! After all, it is the worlds most commonly spoken language, especially in scientific communities, who have a great need to converse.)

This action meant that most Tamil in government, were unable to continue their government. The Tamils, responded by non-violent civil disobediance. Sirimavo responded to this, by declaring a state emergency. This language change, and state of emergency happened within one year of her election victory.

Sirimavo was banned from politics for 7 years, for abuse of power.

Strangely, at times, she was much liked abroad by the political leaders (at the top, like Prime Ministers and Presidents) from other countries. This was because she was a woman, and they were too far away to have to up with the deaths and loss of living standards she caused.

Chandrika Kumaratunga (daughter of Sirimavo, using her husband's name)

This is the situation at the time of Chandrika's power.

Richard Howitt and Robert Evans, two MEPs who visited Sri Lanka recently, without mincing words accused the Sri Lankan government "of not doing enough to protect civilians caught up in the war against Tamil Tiger rebels and is covering up their suffering." They compared the plight of the displaced Tamil people in and around the conflict zone with those of Sierra Leone and Chechnya.

Earlier the two MEPs visited the border town of Vavuniya, where they met Tamil civilians displaced by fighting in the northern Jaffna peninsula and Vanni.

The two MEPs directed their harshest criticism against the government for implementing an oppressive press-censorship policy and of not allowing essential supplies, including baby food and medicine, to be distributed in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers.

For far too long the Sri Lankan government had succeeded in concealing the major humanitarian crisis prevalent in Vanni and other conflict areas by clamping down press censorship coupled with ban on foreign and local news media. Northeast has remained virtually a no go zone for foreign journalists for many years now, except for hand picked pro-government journalists taken on conducted tours. Like the economic blockade, there is also a news blockade of the Northeast. Mr.Evans, a member of the Parliament's South Asia delegation, said that President Kumaratunga's proposals to end the civil war would not work unless she sat down and negotiated with the Tamil Tigers.

No doubt President Chandrika who is used to polite exchange of pleasantries by visiting foreign dignitaries would have been stung by the sharp reproach by the MEPs concerned. The choice of words used was unprecedented for visiting politicians who normally watch their language and speak without giving any offence.

Before the diplomatic and political ripples raised by the MEPs could die down comes hot on the heels a report by Amnesty International (AI). In a hard hitting report dated July 20, 2000, the human rights watchdog has slammed the Sri Lankan government for continued violation of the rights of the Tamil detainees arrested under the emergency regulations.

Sri Lanka enjoys the dubious distinction of being the country with the second largest number of non-clarified cases of "disappearances" on the WGEID's list, and where torture remains widespread. While a very large number of the approximately 12,000 non-clarified "disappearances" on the WGEID's list took place under the UNP government, the practice of "disappearance" by no means ceased when the People's Alliance came to power in 1994 under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.

A very common example of the treatment Tamils get, from the state Chandrika has set up, on July 13, 1999 Sithamparapillai Kanakanayakam, 27, of Kokkaddicholai, 16 kilometres southwest of Batticaloa, was arrested by the army while he was visiting relatives in Kallady, a suburb of Batticaloa town.

The Assistant JMO for Colombo Dr.S.Sivasubramaniam who examined Kanakanayakam on December 15, 1999 states in his report to the court that the youth had been beaten up severely with wires and plastic pipes and his head had been covered with a plastic bag containing petrol fumes and chilli powder and that his head had also been repeatedly thrust into water and held until he choked.

Queen Isabella of Spain (Born 1451)

The Catholic queen was cruelly intolerant, encouraging the infamous Inquisition. In her lust to unify Spain and centralize power, Isabella drove out the Jews, Moors and Gypsies.

Queen Victoria of England

Queen Victoria fought more wars in her time then any queen in English history. Under Victoria the British government was involved in countless wars in the colonies across the world. This was the era of the "Great" (or evil) British Empire. Involved in wars including the Sudan, India, the Boers, South Africa and the Crimean. India suffered it's first famine after being conquered by the evil British. So much for modernising the world.

At the same time, the Prime Minister of England at the time, was W. E. Gladstone, who disliked everything British colonial involvement -- exoticism, exploitation and squandering the public's money on grand exhibitions. Gladstone, a man, was probably the best Liberal politican England has ever had, and served as a perfect counter example to Victoria. Man peaceful civilised constructive, woman warfaring brutal selfish.

Cleopatra gets a Special mention just for being the sluttiest ruler ever in power.

Actually digs pretty much hit the nail on the head in short. Capitalism is the best model for the economy we have right now but it requires small government and low taxes backing it as well as a set of sturdy laws and a justice department that can step in and prevent abuse. Our problem is that in America we have an increasingly larger government, starting slightly with George Bush Sr. and then going out of control with Clinton we have weakened the laws controlling monopolies and businesses, and thanks to our current president our already high taxes are now going up and up and up even more.

However that said, there will never, ever, be only "1 guy". Human nature is to fight, when someone sees another guy doing something that works sooner or later another person will try it. There will always be one person on top like Wal Mart for example, but that doesn't mean they won't have competitors and those competitors will maintain a foothold. In america the rich are getting richer yes, but thats just common sense. You CAN go from being middle class or even poor in America to being liquid and upper class if not rich but no it isn't easy. It takes hard work, a smart plan, the will and resources to make it happen, connections, and alot of luck. That is a helluva lot better than what you will find in many third world or communist countries where you either can't succeed or are penalized for doing so.

In closing America's government needs alot of reform, but moving away from capitalism isn't it.

Actually digs pretty much hit the nail on the head in short. Capitalism is the best model for the economy we have right now but it requires small government and low taxes backing it as well as a set of sturdy laws and a justice department that can step in and prevent abuse. Our problem is that in America we have an increasingly larger government, starting slightly with George Bush Sr. and then going out of control with Clinton we have weakened the laws controlling monopolies and businesses, and thanks to our current president our already high taxes are now going up and up and up even more.

However that said, there will never, ever, be only "1 guy". Human nature is to fight, when someone sees another guy doing something that works sooner or later another person will try it. There will always be one person on top like Wal Mart for example, but that doesn't mean they won't have competitors and those competitors will maintain a foothold. In america the rich are getting richer yes, but thats just common sense. You CAN go from being middle class or even poor in America to being liquid and upper class if not rich but no it isn't easy. It takes hard work, a smart plan, the will and resources to make it happen, connections, and alot of luck. That is a helluva lot better than what you will find in many third world or communist countries where you either can't succeed or are penalized for doing so.

In closing America's government needs alot of reform, but moving away from capitalism isn't it.

@ Karkarov: The story about communist countries is completely wrong. I state that as a citizen of one of those, now ex - communist countries. There were many successful people here, and no one was ever penalized for success. And taxpayers money was better distributed. And there were more jobs. And people were not ashamed when they worked "lower class" of job. Unfortunately, that changes. Taxpayers money is not distributed where it is needed since state is not related to private companies in any way, and we have "lover class of citizens (immigrants from poorer nations)" doing our dirty work, just like in west. Yay! progress!

@ diggs: Actually "free market" was downfall of ex eastern block: it was west that blocked those countries from participating in trade. Do you really think that leaders of those nations were so stupid they said: "No, we wont be selling this to you". Come on!
as for capitalism being the best solution, check out the old continent: by the end of middle ages people in cities were richer then their lieges.They had one ruler and one simple set of rules, taxes and that is it.
But, 200 years later and there we have first industrial revolution and birth of first factories and capitalism. And 10 to 20 years later we have civil wars raging through europe by people demanding their rights. And at that time Karl Marx wrote his "kapital". So if you follow history after that, you will see more and more strikes, more poverty and more hunger and injustice then in famed "dark middle ages". All thanks to capitalism. I mean, if that system is so good, why were there tons of people and whole nations fighting it?

As for corporations, in EU there are laws for merging, and if you want to merge to leapfrog competition or to impose your product, you can not do it, at least not legally. And there are laws against dominating the market by having "one of the kind" product. (Microsoft paid tons of money, as I remember, they were found guilty). So there are ways to circumvent the bad sides of capitalism, if there is political will to do it. Good effects were: in 2007 small businesses from entertainment, culture and media sector made more profit then large car factories (BMW, Mercedes, Seat, Ferrari, just to name some).

Anyone interested in numbers, just go to EU homepage, and you will find all the relative documents there.

well said, but in the end there will always be greedy people who will screw over everyone and anyone even their own grandma just for money. to make an economy that satisfies everyone is difficult so people with influence will just make it to satisfy those with influence.

That because people allow there to be greedy people.
If those type of people was punished for such things, and people in that society was educated differently you find that the amount of greedy people will drop significantly. '

even if you did punish those that did those things they still would try to find a way to get away with doing the same thing again. I do agree with you that some education would help reduce the amount of greedy people it comes down to the morale values of the person and how they were brought up. were theres a need theres a want, and where theres a want there will be greed.

Nah.. Get rid of the money standers, where everyone is equal... everything is given to everyone equally. Doing that would eliminate a lot of the greedy peoples motives.. A world. or a government based on equality, all jobs are valued the same, no one gets more than anyone else. Nor does anyone get less. Doing this with a little creativity could even create a good government structure for everyone with no byes, or racism. Right now I am trying to play my friends in a war game on line in the same time type this to you. Its not working well,.

I explain more in detail later.

that sounds a lot like hippie talk to me and your forgetting one thing the human aspect. a world where everyone gets along and no one gets more than anyone else sounds nice but if a government body is given that much control over its people than that would be equal at all unless you would want the government to be controlled by a computer or something.

People are the government. laws and rules are past through voting.(there mite be a head figure for looks) But has no power over anyone else. Everyone is part of the system, everyone is a working part of the machine. Computers are at the stage that such a set up would work. Everyone know whats going on, then only need to vote on what will be done about it. Once the votes in the action is taken that is dictated by the polls. No need for a leader, or any single group in power.
Greedy people out for there own agendas can not out way the masses in this form of governing.
In a sense the people govern them selves. SO they can not bitch about a corrupt leader.

So u go from ideal communism to ideal democracy? But u r forgetting one crucial element- people. Come on now, both these systems have been tried and failed at the hands of people. what havnt people messed up in this world? You will always have disagreeing factions in ne society with over 1 million people.And you cant and wont have a society without a leader(s). You may not recognize or even realize it, but thier will always be a leader. Besides the masses are to stupid to run a country, thats why we need leaders.(utopias dont and cant exist) peace over war

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle. While you have a false assumption that the majority of people are still stupid, when the internet is providing opportunity for life-long learning as an worldwide open-source platform.

You don't need a million voices for an opposition to appear within a social norm, when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy. A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject. While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda.

My position still holds true. and if "stupid" is to strong a word to describe the majority of the world (even though 3rd world countries dont have internet), then how about ignorant in running a government? Most people dont have the knowledge to run a government. They dont learn that in school.

What he sees is the possibility of both institutions can meet in the middle

When two institutions meet in a middle, it means war in some form or fashion I mean come on, his utopia doesnt even hold up in myths, religion, fantasies, fables, philosophys, thoeries, hypothesis, ect. I mean if they cant hold up in our imagination, how can they hold up in real life? Very few times has reality ever surpassed our imagination...

when as simple as two people with different views on the same subject can form disagreement just as easy.

yet they remain powerless to change anything...and they always end up fighting

A team leader is therefore someone with leadership skills, intelligent, insights and visions, in order to seek out possibility for people with different views to work on a common subject.

Yet these very same skills can be used to exploit and manipulate people toward a common goal that is in the leader's interest at the cost of the people being manipulated. This strategy works best when you pit the "ignorant" masses against each other while you take all thier cash from right under them...u can also take advantage of thier votes. As Hitler once said- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."

And while the masses continue to be at each other's throat, the elitest leaders plan on the next phase to a new or existing war.

While a dictator is someone who sees opportunities to exploit people in order to further its own agenda

um...sounds like a leader to me a dictator is a leader...they must have the same skills in order to do thier job. Btw, has there ever been a female dictator b4? i wouldnt mind being ruled by a beautiful woman

All in All my point still remains solid. Or perhaps im just making all this shit up as i go along? And if so, does it really matter? This so called Utopia as never existed, all forms of government failed to achieve it, and One man's utopia is another man's hell (u dont even want to imagine my utopia...) peace over war

Despise your best effort at twisting my concept, while Darkphoenix3450 had given some examples of historical female dictators, here's my exemplar of a female team leader: meet athlete and actor Aimee Mullin, who's also physically disabled since birth.

Go ahead, I dare you to justify a female amputee with both of her legs removed from her knees, a dictator.

@ Karkarov: The story about communist countries is completely wrong. I state that as a citizen of one of those, now ex - communist countries. There were many successful people here, and no one was ever penalized for success. And taxpayers money was better distributed. And there were more jobs. And people were not ashamed when they worked "lower class" of job. Unfortunately, that changes. Taxpayers money is not distributed where it is needed since state is not related to private companies in any way, and we have "lover class of citizens (immigrants from poorer nations)" doing our dirty work, just like in west. Yay! progress!

@ diggs: Actually "free market" was downfall of ex eastern block: it was west that blocked those countries from participating in trade. Do you really think that leaders of those nations were so stupid they said: "No, we wont be selling this to you". Come on!
as for capitalism being the best solution, check out the old continent: by the end of middle ages people in cities were richer then their lieges.They had one ruler and one simple set of rules, taxes and that is it.
But, 200 years later and there we have first industrial revolution and birth of first factories and capitalism. And 10 to 20 years later we have civil wars raging through europe by people demanding their rights. And at that time Karl Marx wrote his "kapital". So if you follow history after that, you will see more and more strikes, more poverty and more hunger and injustice then in famed "dark middle ages". All thanks to capitalism. I mean, if that system is so good, why were there tons of people and whole nations fighting it?

As for corporations, in EU there are laws for merging, and if you want to merge to leapfrog competition or to impose your product, you can not do it, at least not legally. And there are laws against dominating the market by having "one of the kind" product. (Microsoft paid tons of money, as I remember, they were found guilty). So there are ways to circumvent the bad sides of capitalism, if there is political will to do it. Good effects were: in 2007 small businesses from entertainment, culture and media sector made more profit then large car factories (BMW, Mercedes, Seat, Ferrari, just to name some).

Anyone interested in numbers, just go to EU homepage, and you will find all the relative documents there.

Actually your missing the point. Economic issues don't start overnight. Like I said america's problems particularly can be traced back quite a long ways. In fact I could even say it started with the separation of banks from the national government because at one time all banking in america was basically controlled by the national government and we were not allowed to have more US dollars in printed form than our nations gold value. Today america controls it's banks again but only because of the buyout that happened last year and there has been no evidence of real control being exerted over them since then or of a policy change on how they operate. Also america is heading further in the direction of communism or socialism in it's policies. Both types of government by definition work against free market economy and capitalism so there is obviously going to be problems. Hence, smaller government/lower taxes. I would say get rid of PAC's too but they are making too many politicians rich and fund everyone's campaign so it is unlikely.

This of course goes back to the voter problem though because one of the last two presidential candidates broke funding law and accepted millions from big business for his campaign. Here is a hint, it wasn't the guy we elected. That sends a clear message to politicians though and isn't the message the "every man" should be wanting to broadcast.

To sum up my point is the government has been making long term mistakes from an economic and social standpoint and that is why we are having a problem today. The economic model of free market or capitalism is not what is causing it or to blame. Also the strongest growing economy in the world is probably china and they are in fact switching to a more capitalism based economic model as well.

I would also point out that Wal Mart started as a family owned corner grocery store and Microsoft began in Bill Gates garage. Bill Gates may have only had to deal with Steve Jobs and Apple but Sam Walton was competing with hundreds of companies who did the same thing he did, had more resources, and had been doing it longer.

@ Karkarov: The story about communist countries is completely wrong. I state that as a citizen of one of those, now ex - communist countries. There were many successful people here, and no one was ever penalized for success. And taxpayers money was better distributed. And there were more jobs. And people were not ashamed when they worked "lower class" of job. Unfortunately, that changes. Taxpayers money is not distributed where it is needed since state is not related to private companies in any way, and we have "lover class of citizens (immigrants from poorer nations)" doing our dirty work, just like in west. Yay! progress!

@ diggs: Actually "free market" was downfall of ex eastern block: it was west that blocked those countries from participating in trade. Do you really think that leaders of those nations were so stupid they said: "No, we wont be selling this to you". Come on!
as for capitalism being the best solution, check out the old continent: by the end of middle ages people in cities were richer then their lieges.They had one ruler and one simple set of rules, taxes and that is it.
But, 200 years later and there we have first industrial revolution and birth of first factories and capitalism. And 10 to 20 years later we have civil wars raging through europe by people demanding their rights. And at that time Karl Marx wrote his "kapital". So if you follow history after that, you will see more and more strikes, more poverty and more hunger and injustice then in famed "dark middle ages". All thanks to capitalism. I mean, if that system is so good, why were there tons of people and whole nations fighting it?

As for corporations, in EU there are laws for merging, and if you want to merge to leapfrog competition or to impose your product, you can not do it, at least not legally. And there are laws against dominating the market by having "one of the kind" product. (Microsoft paid tons of money, as I remember, they were found guilty). So there are ways to circumvent the bad sides of capitalism, if there is political will to do it. Good effects were: in 2007 small businesses from entertainment, culture and media sector made more profit then large car factories (BMW, Mercedes, Seat, Ferrari, just to name some).

Anyone interested in numbers, just go to EU homepage, and you will find all the relative documents there.

Actually your missing the point. Economic issues don't start overnight. Like I said america's problems particularly can be traced back quite a long ways. In fact I could even say it started with the separation of banks from the national government because at one time all banking in america was basically controlled by the national government and we were not allowed to have more US dollars in printed form than our nations gold value. Today america controls it's banks again but only because of the buyout that happened last year and there has been no evidence of real control being exerted over them since then or of a policy change on how they operate. Also america is heading further in the direction of communism or socialism in it's policies. Both types of government by definition work against free market economy and capitalism so there is obviously going to be problems. Hence, smaller government/lower taxes. I would say get rid of PAC's too but they are making too many politicians rich and fund everyone's campaign so it is unlikely.

This of course goes back to the voter problem though because one of the last two presidential candidates broke funding law and accepted millions from big business for his campaign. Here is a hint, it wasn't the guy we elected. That sends a clear message to politicians though and isn't the message the "every man" should be wanting to broadcast.

To sum up my point is the government has been making long term mistakes from an economic and social standpoint and that is why we are having a problem today. The economic model of free market or capitalism is not what is causing it or to blame. Also the strongest growing economy in the world is probably china and they are in fact switching to a more capitalism based economic model as well.

I would also point out that Wal Mart started as a family owned corner grocery store and Microsoft began in Bill Gates garage. Bill Gates may have only had to deal with Steve Jobs and Apple but Sam Walton was competing with hundreds of companies who did the same thing he did, had more resources, and had been doing it longer.

That's all well in good but there has to be a point in where such corporations should not be allowed to have so much power, did you not know about the new supreme court decision that was passed, that set companies can now run political campaigns with untold amounts of money so yeah good luck trying to decent politician anymore since they are just going to be poster boys for set companies. So yeah that's just great also corporations need to stop all of the foreign outsourcing because come to think it name one set good besides food and your car that is actually made in America. Those jobs could do just fine here and produce a good source of revenue for the American economy, but they do not care. I work in used retail and we get hurt the most due to these corner cutting methods due to all the recalls on children's toy's and clothes. sigh what's the point I have stated what I think and well I guess that's all I can do

@ Karkarov: The story about communist countries is completely wrong. I state that as a citizen of one of those, now ex - communist countries. There were many successful people here, and no one was ever penalized for success. And taxpayers money was better distributed. And there were more jobs. And people were not ashamed when they worked "lower class" of job. Unfortunately, that changes. Taxpayers money is not distributed where it is needed since state is not related to private companies in any way, and we have "lover class of citizens (immigrants from poorer nations)" doing our dirty work, just like in west. Yay! progress!

@ diggs: Actually "free market" was downfall of ex eastern block: it was west that blocked those countries from participating in trade. Do you really think that leaders of those nations were so stupid they said: "No, we wont be selling this to you". Come on!
as for capitalism being the best solution, check out the old continent: by the end of middle ages people in cities were richer then their lieges.They had one ruler and one simple set of rules, taxes and that is it.
But, 200 years later and there we have first industrial revolution and birth of first factories and capitalism. And 10 to 20 years later we have civil wars raging through europe by people demanding their rights. And at that time Karl Marx wrote his "kapital". So if you follow history after that, you will see more and more strikes, more poverty and more hunger and injustice then in famed "dark middle ages". All thanks to capitalism. I mean, if that system is so good, why were there tons of people and whole nations fighting it?

As for corporations, in EU there are laws for merging, and if you want to merge to leapfrog competition or to impose your product, you can not do it, at least not legally. And there are laws against dominating the market by having "one of the kind" product. (Microsoft paid tons of money, as I remember, they were found guilty). So there are ways to circumvent the bad sides of capitalism, if there is political will to do it. Good effects were: in 2007 small businesses from entertainment, culture and media sector made more profit then large car factories (BMW, Mercedes, Seat, Ferrari, just to name some).

Anyone interested in numbers, just go to EU homepage, and you will find all the relative documents there.

Actually your missing the point. Economic issues don't start overnight. Like I said america's problems particularly can be traced back quite a long ways. In fact I could even say it started with the separation of banks from the national government because at one time all banking in america was basically controlled by the national government and we were not allowed to have more US dollars in printed form than our nations gold value. Today america controls it's banks again but only because of the buyout that happened last year and there has been no evidence of real control being exerted over them since then or of a policy change on how they operate. Also america is heading further in the direction of communism or socialism in it's policies. Both types of government by definition work against free market economy and capitalism so there is obviously going to be problems. Hence, smaller government/lower taxes. I would say get rid of PAC's too but they are making too many politicians rich and fund everyone's campaign so it is unlikely.

This of course goes back to the voter problem though because one of the last two presidential candidates broke funding law and accepted millions from big business for his campaign. Here is a hint, it wasn't the guy we elected. That sends a clear message to politicians though and isn't the message the "every man" should be wanting to broadcast.

To sum up my point is the government has been making long term mistakes from an economic and social standpoint and that is why we are having a problem today. The economic model of free market or capitalism is not what is causing it or to blame. Also the strongest growing economy in the world is probably china and they are in fact switching to a more capitalism based economic model as well.

I would also point out that Wal Mart started as a family owned corner grocery store and Microsoft began in Bill Gates garage. Bill Gates may have only had to deal with Steve Jobs and Apple but Sam Walton was competing with hundreds of companies who did the same thing he did, had more resources, and had been doing it longer.

That's all well in good but there has to be a point in where such corporations should not be allowed to have so much power, did you not know about the new supreme court decision that was passed, that set companies can now run political campaigns with untold amounts of money so yeah good luck trying to decent politician anymore since they are just going to be poster boys for set companies. So yeah that's just great also corporations need to stop all of the foreign outsourcing because come to think it name one set good besides food and your car that is actually made in America. Those jobs could do just fine here and produce a good source of revenue for the American economy, but they do not care. I work in used retail and we get hurt the most due to these corner cutting methods due to all the recalls on children's toy's and clothes. sigh what's the point I have stated what I think and well I guess that's all I can do

Good points there Cecil, very true. Just remember it isn't the companies who passed those laws. It is your government that did it. As long as people keep voting for the people they are voting for it isn't changing. You know the outsourcing thing used to be illegal. But then again so many businesses now have unions where you have to pay flat ludicrous wages to people to employ them I can understand why a company would go elsewhere. I remember a airline strike a few years ago in fact where a news crew interviewed a union rep and asked "would you be willing to take a slight pay cut if your people got to keep their jobs" and they said no. What does that say?

@ Karkarov: The story about communist countries is completely wrong. I state that as a citizen of one of those, now ex - communist countries. There were many successful people here, and no one was ever penalized for success. And taxpayers money was better distributed. And there were more jobs. And people were not ashamed when they worked "lower class" of job. Unfortunately, that changes. Taxpayers money is not distributed where it is needed since state is not related to private companies in any way, and we have "lover class of citizens (immigrants from poorer nations)" doing our dirty work, just like in west. Yay! progress!

@ diggs: Actually "free market" was downfall of ex eastern block: it was west that blocked those countries from participating in trade. Do you really think that leaders of those nations were so stupid they said: "No, we wont be selling this to you". Come on!
as for capitalism being the best solution, check out the old continent: by the end of middle ages people in cities were richer then their lieges.They had one ruler and one simple set of rules, taxes and that is it.
But, 200 years later and there we have first industrial revolution and birth of first factories and capitalism. And 10 to 20 years later we have civil wars raging through europe by people demanding their rights. And at that time Karl Marx wrote his "kapital". So if you follow history after that, you will see more and more strikes, more poverty and more hunger and injustice then in famed "dark middle ages". All thanks to capitalism. I mean, if that system is so good, why were there tons of people and whole nations fighting it?

As for corporations, in EU there are laws for merging, and if you want to merge to leapfrog competition or to impose your product, you can not do it, at least not legally. And there are laws against dominating the market by having "one of the kind" product. (Microsoft paid tons of money, as I remember, they were found guilty). So there are ways to circumvent the bad sides of capitalism, if there is political will to do it. Good effects were: in 2007 small businesses from entertainment, culture and media sector made more profit then large car factories (BMW, Mercedes, Seat, Ferrari, just to name some).

Anyone interested in numbers, just go to EU homepage, and you will find all the relative documents there.

Actually your missing the point. Economic issues don't start overnight. Like I said america's problems particularly can be traced back quite a long ways. In fact I could even say it started with the separation of banks from the national government because at one time all banking in america was basically controlled by the national government and we were not allowed to have more US dollars in printed form than our nations gold value. Today america controls it's banks again but only because of the buyout that happened last year and there has been no evidence of real control being exerted over them since then or of a policy change on how they operate. Also america is heading further in the direction of communism or socialism in it's policies. Both types of government by definition work against free market economy and capitalism so there is obviously going to be problems. Hence, smaller government/lower taxes. I would say get rid of PAC's too but they are making too many politicians rich and fund everyone's campaign so it is unlikely.

This of course goes back to the voter problem though because one of the last two presidential candidates broke funding law and accepted millions from big business for his campaign. Here is a hint, it wasn't the guy we elected. That sends a clear message to politicians though and isn't the message the "every man" should be wanting to broadcast.

To sum up my point is the government has been making long term mistakes from an economic and social standpoint and that is why we are having a problem today. The economic model of free market or capitalism is not what is causing it or to blame. Also the strongest growing economy in the world is probably china and they are in fact switching to a more capitalism based economic model as well.

I would also point out that Wal Mart started as a family owned corner grocery store and Microsoft began in Bill Gates garage. Bill Gates may have only had to deal with Steve Jobs and Apple but Sam Walton was competing with hundreds of companies who did the same thing he did, had more resources, and had been doing it longer.

That's all well in good but there has to be a point in where such corporations should not be allowed to have so much power, did you not know about the new supreme court decision that was passed, that set companies can now run political campaigns with untold amounts of money so yeah good luck trying to decent politician anymore since they are just going to be poster boys for set companies. So yeah that's just great also corporations need to stop all of the foreign outsourcing because come to think it name one set good besides food and your car that is actually made in America. Those jobs could do just fine here and produce a good source of revenue for the American economy, but they do not care. I work in used retail and we get hurt the most due to these corner cutting methods due to all the recalls on children's toy's and clothes. sigh what's the point I have stated what I think and well I guess that's all I can do

Good points there Cecil, very true. Just remember it isn't the companies who passed those laws. It is your government that did it. As long as people keep voting for the people they are voting for it isn't changing. You know the outsourcing thing used to be illegal. But then again so many businesses now have unions where you have to pay flat ludicrous wages to people to employ them I can understand why a company would go elsewhere. I remember a airline strike a few years ago in fact where a news crew interviewed a union rep and asked "would you be willing to take a slight pay cut if your people got to keep their jobs" and they said no. What does that say?

just like my father has always told me money is what it takes to create power, then hold power in this world. Lets not care about the average working man that works their ass off to make ends meat but instead lets try to make ourselves as rich as possible off these foolish people. The store where i am working at now used to be an non-profit organization until people realized that a really good profit could be made and well there is noting wrong with that but it hurting us due to the fact that people keep leaving and we are unable to hire anyone else because where a little below or just right at budget. I understand the concept of a business needing to making in order to survive but when the spend 3 million opening a new store instead of investing back in the stores that need it the most that is well kinda shitty and btw i work at good will if your wanting to know. Also to answer you question that is bull shit but not surprising people only care about themselves and not others around them.